Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Toyota Tacoma vs Nissan Frontier



  • qwert13qwert13 Posts: 24
    Lear says they will release a cab-high topper for the King Cab 7/25/05. ARE says there release for a cab high King Cab will be sometime 8/2005. (I'm waiting for the Lear...I have a 205 NISMO King Cab).
  • danielacostadanielacosta Posts: 132
    I have the off-road rash on my rear fender flares, the cost of being an off-roader. When it gets bad enough I'll repaint, then put larger pieces of clear plastic over them. Nissan puts small pieces of clear there to protect, but they need to be larger.

    A bigger concern I have is all four of my hard mud-flaps have broken off-roading. Flexible rubber flaps like Tacoma would be better.

    If I may digress for a moment: spent a half-day yesterday test-driving a Ridgeline, including some soft-roading sections. Ridgeline lived up to the magazine reviews: great ride, soft on power, doesn't have the mechanicals to off-road beyond dirt trails and mild hills. The kicker was a little "test hill" near my house with about a 35-40 degree grade. Tried climbing it in the Ridgeline. First pass in normal-AWD, made it about half-way up, then slid back down with the front-end rotating around; ended up sliding downhill at a 45-degree angle. For a moment thought I was going to be paying for a rollover in a new vehicle, but survived. Second pass with VTM-4 lock engaged: made it up the hill using nearly full throttle, a little slippage along the way but generally in control. Tried the same hill later in the evening with my 05 Frontier NISMO CC. In 4x4 high made the hill with no slippage and about one-third to one-half throttle. In 4x4 low, even less throttle (of-course), and also tried stopping and restarting part way up the hill: still no slippage whatsoever. For fun I then went down the hill with HDC engaged: amazing how I could let off the brake and watch the truck crawl down this hill in total control. Bottom line for me is I'll take the Frontier's slightly more truckish ride, better power, and incredible off-road ability over the Ridgeline's car-like ride, "adequate" power, and soft-road ability.
  • qwert13qwert13 Posts: 24
    So that's what that small 8" long and 3"-4" thing is on the rear flares. So they knew there was an issue and put an inch long bandade on a 6 inch sore. If they have a plastic pieces that size, I'm sure they can cut one to fit a much larger area. Also noticed that the '05s now on the lot have a solid flat step rail that extends to the end of the cab but not to the flare and is rather wide. Much more coverage than the tube style. My idea is to use the tube style to deflect stones from the rear flare, but looks like they know the new design is better for that. I've ordered the tube, but think I want the flat one and will use touch up paint and rubbing compound to make it look beter from a distance. These are rather small chips and so many can't see using a nick sander, etc. Unfortunately, I not only enjoy leaving the road, but like to take very good care of the exterior and interior for resale down the road.
    Right now, I have a transmission that have popped out of second gear 3 times on washboard...roads that my 1989 Honda Civic (208K miles) has been on. Dealership is telling me they will replace the tranny under warranty.
    Other than the fender flares, I can't believe how responsive that engine is and it goes far....including one place I won't go back to.

    Thanks for the response...was wondering if anyone else was getting the rash.
  • matt30matt30 Posts: 27
    The JD power rankings are not based on how many reported problems there are with the drivetrain (as evidence of the Ford F-150 always taking top spot) there based on how "fun" the reviews thought it was. I'm sure the Frontier will score very close to the tacoma just as the Titan did.
  • woodshop28woodshop28 Posts: 74
    I pulled off the small clear piece that came on the truck's rear flares and covered the whole area, up about 18" with the 3M clearmask stuff. I also did the rocker panels and headlights.
    It is not the easiest stuff to apply, and my job isn't "professional," but it looks fine, and it protects well against chips. I was getting quite a few small chips on the rocker panels and rear flares before this.
    I also applied herculiner to the bed under my drop-in liner. I already had some worn off paint under there from hauling rock and landscaping stones, among other things. I had this herculiner on my old Tacoma under the drop in. I see it as cheap insurance.

    Thanks for the info on the Ridgeline test drive.
  • qwert13qwert13 Posts: 24
    Thanks to you and danielacosta, who have experienced to same issues with the Frontier, for your responses. Amazing that a company like Nissan has engineered/designed a vehicle that has an obvious, and in my opinion, a serious problem with the exterior, knowing that road rash would occur. Why else would they have put a pathetic eight inch patch over the fender...and it is useless. Even when I talk to the dealership, they say that the foot rails will "help prevent" the chips...not prevent. I had a 1978 Subaru Brat, 1984 Subaru 4x4 wagon, 1986 Montero, and a 1994 Ranger. Never added more that a bug shield to the Montero and Ranger. Those vehicles NEVER showed the chips/road rash in the years I owned them that this Frontier has shown in the 2 months, 3800 miles that I have owned it...and they were put through 100 times more than this Frontier...especially the Montero and Ranger doing Colorado mountain passes and everything else this state has to offer. Should we really be expected to be scrambling to protect our investments the way we are? Why didn't the dealerships tell us "you'd better by the foot rails". Had I known what I know now, I would not have purchased the Frontier. Now it's how much I spend to protect/correct it, how long I keep it, how much money I'm willing to eat to get rid of it....
    Sorry, but that's the way I first and last Nissan.
  • toyotakentoyotaken Posts: 897
    I'm going to preface this by saying that I work for a Toyota dealer, so I obviously don't have a reason to defend Nissan. The reason I say this is that I don't know that anything you would purchase now would have the same durability for the paint as your '86 and '94 trucks. The reason is that ALL manufacturer's have had to convert to using water-based paints rather than the petroleum or lead based paints they used in the past. These water-based paints are not as hard or as durable as the older paints. They are MUCH more friendly to the environment both in the manufacturing process and when it comes time to repaint vehicles, but at the expense of durability.

    If you read posts for just about any truck/vehicle in the forums you will find similar complaints unfortunately.

    Just wanted you to have some more info.

  • qwert13qwert13 Posts: 24
    So is this why manufacturers in the recent years were adding more and more rubber/plastic overfenders/lower side panels/rocker panels to absorb the wear and tear? Yet, it the last year or so, I have seen the manufacturers reverting back to metal. Is this because all those plastic/rubber additions are actually adding entry points for salt in Northern states? In Colorado...give me rubber and plastic. Maybe I should have spent over 2K for a new tranny/clutch...AGAIN for the 3rd time on the Ranger even though the truck was worth less than 2K. Yes...I know how to drive a standard transmission. My '89 Honda Civic is on it's second clutch...I got 170,000 on the first one....and I drive it hard. Maybe a new offered color for autos should be primer gray.
    Hey, I'm upset, but think that you are enlightening me and others to new standards(?) that is eating our money. I appreciate your input.
  • toyotakentoyotaken Posts: 897
    You're welcome although, as I said, I can't say that I like the newer materials they're using. I know that many manufacturers are using clear "tape" in areas prone to chipping such as in the corners of door frames and back of wheel wells. It's not really pretty, so I can see why they use it sparingly.

  • wooddorkerwooddorker Posts: 300
    "The reason is that ALL manufacturer's have had to convert to using water-based paints rather than the petroleum or lead based paints they used in the past."

    Are they truly water based, or simply low VOC? Low VOC products can be substandard, as well.

    I have some factory touchup paint for some new cars, and it is definitely NOT water based.

    That said, water based products in woodworking, as in the pro versions, not the crap at home centers, has come an awful long way. Some of them outperform the old lacquer and petroleum based products by a large margin. The good ones are E-X-P-E-N-S-I-V-E!!!
  • After reading this forum topic, I'd swear this was a bunch of Nissan salespeople trying to boost business...not a bad tactic. I think both trucks are pretty good choices, I like the quiet operation of the Frontier, but applying quietcoat to the Tacoma will solve any noise issues. To me the Frontier is a car with a bed...great for going to the dump once or twice a year, and light dirt driving. I've had a Nissan but it never really felt like a truck to me. I agree with the person who said the Frontier is a better choice for a daily driver. The Tacoma is more truck like and feels much more capable, clearly the better off road choice IMO. The bugs people have experienced are common to any new model and usually get ironed out by the end of the year. As for power, it's pretty ridiculous to prefer one over the other...they're both powerful...who cares if one is a tenth of a second faster? My preference for the Toyota really came down to one kids were much more comfortable in the back seat of the dbl cab Tacoma. Hearing the familiar phrase "Are we there yet?" a few less times is huge in my book.
  • toyotakentoyotaken Posts: 897
    Now I'm going from what I've been told by reps from Toyota that come to the dealership as well as from the person that was running the tour of the plant in Cambridge, Ontario that I went to a few months back. It is a truly water-based paint they use. It's beneficial in that it doesn't have the fumes and toxic byproducts from the application, with the added benefit that cleaning the painting equipment in the plant is also easier and more environmentally friendly as they don't need solvents and such to do so. They estimated that on a vehicle the size of a Corolla, Matrix or RX330 which are all built there, it takes on average about 1 gallon of paint which is applied to a thickness of just under a human hair. On top of this is the clear-coat which has about the same depth.

    From my understanding, while the application process itself may differ between manufacturers, the material itself and use of it is pretty similar.

    Hope this helps.

  • centralcalcentralcal Posts: 215
    You must have not had the opportunity to fill out their survey, it is the customer reporting his/her satisfaction, not a reviewer. That is what the magazines are for. People are reporting a lot more mechanical problems when compared to the '04 (not surprising being completely redesigned). F150 took the Truck of the Year last year, same award the Taco got and I think Chevy usually has higher ratings than Ford.
  • I seriously doubt that two companies with solid reputations such as Toyota and Honda would risk their reputations on a technology that was not tested and well engineered. I guess time will tell, but I'm willing to bet that others will follow suit with composite'll be interesting. If Toyota beds crack over time, they won't be worth a plug nickel....still can't imagine a company risking this...they likely know a lot more than the rest of us. I wonder how they'll handle warranties for this bed if it does crack?
  • wooddorkerwooddorker Posts: 300
    "I seriously doubt that two companies with solid reputations such as Toyota and Honda would risk their reputations on a technology that was not tested and well engineered."

    Last Tuesday, I had a rented floor sander (industrial quality) do a dance around the bed during an emergency move. A corner of the sander hit the side of the bed with enough force to move the truck, and break some machined metal parts on the machine. The machine was sitting on a rubber bed mat, which caused the unsecured machine to barrell roll, not slide into the side of the bed.

    The extent of the bed damage is a dime sized, triangular dent, with a very small tear in the corner. The impact easily would have put a serious dent or crease in a steel bed, and definitely would have started a rust spot.

    The damage would easily be cosmetically repaired with black tinted epoxy, but I probably won't bother. I've drilled some accessory mounting holes in my bed, and the fibers that are mixed into the bed material seem like they will add a lot of strength.
  • 81trekker81trekker Posts: 51
    I've read about 2 pages of posts that seem to deal with issues like paint chips as opposed to really comparing the Tacoma and Frontier. Having had two 4Runners and their predecessor, the Trekker, I'm certainly a believe in the Toys. However, last year we bought Nissan Armada which has been an excellent truck and we previously had an Xterra that was ok. I do a moderate amount of off-roading in the GW National Forest and elsewhere but do not try to climb rocks. I believe that either the Tacoma or Frontier would do the job. The deciding factor is the gas required. I'm not paying almost 20 cents more a gallon for a Tacoma's premium gas. Should this not be a significant factor in one's decision?

    81 Trekker

  • toyotakentoyotaken Posts: 897
    Premium is not REQUIRED. It is recommended to get optomial performance (read HP) but not for engine longevity or durability. So if you don't mind a loss of 5-10hp while using 87octane, you won't have a problem at all.

  • bjw1bjw1 Posts: 152
    i use mid grade on my taco and still get 19mpg in city blowing the a/c, and spend only about $1.50 more to fill up so it is not that big of a difference with me at least, gas prices are rediculous i know, but on the other hand if you do put in 87 grade you will drop in mpg so the trade of is very minimal, just like the dealer prices for the hybrid is high so it takers a couple of years just to get a difference with the cost of ownership between hybrid and regular gas vehicle, just another spin on the subject.
  • danielacostadanielacosta Posts: 132
    The Frontier gets its full rated power on regular. This is one of the reasons I chose the Frontier over Tacoma. A bigger reason was all four 05 Tacomas I test-drove had quality problems, like difficulty going in and out of 4wd.
  • boone88rrboone88rr Posts: 194
    Premium is definitely not required. I use 89 in mine too. Actually, running your Frontier at 5600 rpms gets full power out of the engine too, but I highly doubt you're doing that. I don't care what you say, you don't get max performance/ gas mileage out of regular gasoline (Frontier = built for regular, gets worse gas mileage. Coincidence?). Toyota is smart for recommending that you use premium in their V6's.

    The higher the octane, the better the performance you will get out of your engine.

    Using 89 octane for one year @ 18k miles: $90 extra
    Using premium for one year @ 18k miles: $180 extra
    The look on a Frontier owner's face after you just smoked 'em on the highway: Priceless :P
  • danielacostadanielacosta Posts: 132
    Tacoma is a great truck. It gets great performance from less power because it weighs about 500 pounds less. It does run fine on regular, but at reduced power. Other trucks, like Frontier, get their full rated power on regular. On the Frontier site, dyno tests are posted showing no gain on premium vs regular, so for the Frontier you don't need to buy premium to get maximum horsepower.

    Tacoma will hopefully improve and get the early production bugs out. I'd rather be on the road than in the shop. If you got a "good" one, then you're luckier than most 05 Tacoma owners. With the exception of Motor Trend, who liked Tacoma's many bed, cab, and engine configurations, every press review has picked Ridgeline #1, provided you don't go off-road, Frontier a close second, and Tacoma third. It's interesting how the lowest rated truck (Colorado) sells the most, followed by Tacoma and Dakota. The highest rated trucks (Ridgeline and Frontier) sell the least. Go figure.

    Tacoma's back seat gymnastics, drum brakes, and low hanging central exhaust turned me off. Failure to go in and out of 4wd on a test drive knocked it from the running.
  • gg05gg05 Posts: 1
    I have been in the Nissan family since 2000 when I bought a Frontier. That was the worst decision I ever made. Though my truck has been very reliable, I would never buy another because of poor dealer service and sleepy looks. When the 05 Frontier came out I was hoping the styling would improve but instead it got even worse! And the Frontier has one of the worst interiors i've ever seen, looks like something from the 80's! Thats enough right there for me to never give the 05 a second look. I've also had alot of problems with my local Nissan dealer, as have many others in my area. They are a bunch of crooks plain and simple. The 05 Frontier might have better power but it doesnt have the looks to go along with it.
  • steveh427steveh427 Posts: 25
    Before purchasing my truck ( Prerunner DC/SB/TRD#2), I went through all of the pros and cons including Reg. gas vs premium gas. I also looked at gas mileage of each vehicle. After a while, you can make yourself crazy analyzing all this stuff! Bottom line for me was to get the truck I liked and wanted. As far as reg vs prem gas, it's really an insignificant factor. If you look at the Frontier discussions on this board, owners have been reporting gas mileage anywhere from 14 to 18 mpg. I just filled up with my second tank of gas running regular gas the first time and premium the second. Both times I'm averaging about 20.4 mpg 70/30 hwy/city. Some say it supposed to get better as the engine breaks in. I'd gladly pay an extra 20 cents for the extra 2-3 mpg. It all evens out at the end.
  • qwert13qwert13 Posts: 24
    As for me, I think the Frontier styling is very bold. Seems to be a trend now for the "arrow" look among the manufacturers. Take a look at the fins from the 50s. . I like it when a truck follows such a trend....Titan is very good looking. (Yes, this trend too will pass). my previous posts about how Nissan actually built a body that does not belong on the road. Maybe with petroleum based paints it would fair better, but they still need to protect the overfenders (and running boards)...they knew it was inadequate.
    I see all this "mine is better than yours" stuff. Who cares, we're all in the same boat trying to get our money's worth I've always considered Toyota and Nissan trucks the best ones fighting it out. Now, with all I'm reading, seems to be deciding which is the worse of two lessers....kind of like a presidential election. Seems both have issues. Maybe these two manufacturers need to be Avis and "try harder".
    Where we do agree, for what ever the reason, is " That was the worst decision I ever made."
  • hungkhungk Posts: 14
    Last weekend put little more than 3oo miles on my new Niss O5 Crew Cab,
    200 miles of it dirt from mild, to scratchin the boulders , heres what I can say,
    was I was verry impressed with the ground clearance , and would have to repeat what another person here said, that the truck is verry nimble, and responsive, ditto . ditttttttoooo. and the most impressive thing about it is the
    horsies, something about the engine and the pedal its like either u wanna go stop or go faster, touch that pedal , and its now or not, like theres no coasting wherever the pedal is thats where ur goin .... Hmmmmmmmmmm.. the rest is personal preferences and the almighty dollar..........................
    (Toyota-Nissan) I do think the New Frontier has more interior space especially in the Crew Cab rear seats , but I would say to any prospective buyer, try the Nismo, at least go drive one /////,
    and then go from there, as far as how many doors ,and how long the box...more personal preferences that greatly affect the ride and space,towing , fuel economy , requirements for your needs, ETC
    I thought. if the only thing people could find to complain about is the rock nicks on the flare fenders - which is the only thing that distinguishes the New Frontier from the rest! as far as asthetics !, then well darn!, but Im not surprised being an ex dealership mechanic, as no matter what.... we always find something to complain about , and want sumthin for nothin , I m really impressed with my New Frontier , especially after owning the same truck in an O3 and all the things that annoyed me about it are all fixed, Id bet if a person picked the same
    compatible trucks as far as engine, weight, and creature comforts ?!?!?! . that most will choose the Nissan. particularly when slapped in the face with Toyotas higher price tag . tooooooooooooooo muucccccccccccchhhhhhhhh Hiiigher !!!!
    for what U get, for Your hard earned Buck ! but only time will tell , I guess im just one whoos made the leap away from that Bloated Overpriced American
    well I cant Say it but U kno what J word Im thinkin > still proud to be an American , Just damned embarrased sometimes , I know Id be happy with a Taco too, just glad I made the leap.......................................
  • danielacostadanielacosta Posts: 132
    I think the 05 Tacoma Double Cab is one of the best looking trucks on the road, period. Still, I ended up buying the Frontier CC NISMO, even though it's rear doors look small by comparison. I like the Frontier's front end better than Tacoma's, but the Tacoma still looks way better than the Tundra.

    Looks aside, I chose the Frontier over Tacoma for many other reasons than just looks. Even though the Tacoma rear seat is bigger on paper, the actual legroom is less when the front seat is adjusted for my 6-1 frame. Rear-seat folding options are better in the Frontier, too. If you rarely fold the rear seat, that won't matter to you, but I am always hauling stuff in the rear seat so the Frontier's quick-fold without removing the headrests like Tacoma is a big plus.

    The kicker for me is off-road capability. The Tacoma has a higher body, but lower chassis. The Tacoma central exhaust crossmember is the low point, and would be damaged in hard off-roading. The Tacoma's I test drove had "bugs" trying to shift in and out of 4wd (and other quality problems, too), but every Frontier I tried was flawless. Most magazines pick the Frontier's driving feel over Tacoma's, but I thought they both felt about the same and drive great. A Ridgeline drives better than any other truck in every press comparison, and I agree. But the Ridgeline has limited off-road and towing ability compared to Tacoma and Frontier.

    Any of these three would be a great choice. I'm an off-roader, so the off-road performance, lack of quality bugs, and rear-seat flexibility led me to the Frontier, and I haven't regretted it.

    My next truck will be whoever comes out with a hybrid model that delivers mileage in the mid-20's with hp in the high-200's or better. Honda, Nissan, and Toyota: are you listening?
  • diko617diko617 Posts: 3
    I just traded my 04 Nissan Frontier KC XE to a 05 Nissan FRONTIER CC LE. I test drive the Ridgeline, Tacoma, and Dakota. You know what guys nothing come close to a Frontier when it comes to power of the engine. I even like the quiet interior it got, im driving at 80 mph and all i here is the whistle that comes from the roof rack. I dont want to make any comment about the Tacoma & ridgeline, see it for yourselves. Believe me after you tried to the test drive the Trucks ive mentioned, you will agree with me that I MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE in choosing a NISSAN FRONTIER! :)
  • dttdtt Posts: 2
    Same here. Bought my 05 Nissan Frontier SE CC in mid July and am very happy with it. I was planning on getting a Tacoma but after test driving both, I felt the Nissan was a better choice for me. But don't get me wrong. My friend just bought a Tacoma CC long bed and that thing kicks [non-permissible content removed] but it just wasn't for me, though I really wish Nissan made the long bed option also. That would have made the Frontier an even better truck. We both use our trucks for hauling mountain bikes and people and both trucks are very capable of doing what they were designed to do and I personally don't know anyone who was not happy with their decision to buy one or the other. And yeah, his truck has issues but so does mine and so does every other vehicle ever sold. My recommedation: test drive both and do your homework. What really sealed the deal for me was that the Nissan dealer had the Frontier in stock while I would have had to wait 3 months for a Tacoma. Also, I got my Nissan for 5 grand less than the best deal I could get for a comparably equipped Toyota. Ask my friend and he'll tell you get a Tacoma. Ask me and I'll tell you I really like my Frontier. They're both good trucks!
  • qwert13qwert13 Posts: 24
    woodshp28 and danielacosta...
    Out of curiousity, what color is your Frontier...?
  • rutzmanrutzman Posts: 9
    Any word out there on a mild suspension lift for the '05 Frontier. It seems my old '92 Hardbody had more clearance with 30inch tires. I'd like to lift the '05 two or so inches, is it possible to do with tweeking the stock equipement.
  • streaksstreaks Posts: 64
    Nice post! See, some of us can play nice! As for me, the 4 or 5 g's more I paid to get the Tacoma was worth EVERY Damn cent!!! I've been lucky (7000mi.)...just a leaf spring big deal.
    I have a customer..owns 3 Sabb/Volvo dealerships (has a huge farm too)..know what he drives??................Tacoma!! I took his advise! Any one who drives one of these "New" designs of either vehicle will be impressed...Again, I'd would've been happy drivin' the Nissan too.. just not AS happy!!! Yeah, and the guy in the new Beamer I blew off wasn't happy!!(nothin like a 6 speed) All in how you break 'em in and drive 'em! Hey Now!!
  • danielacostadanielacosta Posts: 132
    My Frontier is blue.
  • goofballgoofball Posts: 20
    The "higher the octane, the better the performance you will get out of your engine" statement is only partially correct. The reason that you actually get better performance in these newer engines, both the '05 Nissan Frontier and the Toyota Tacoma is that higher octane gasoline allows the variable valve timing system to use a more aggressive profile without pinging/knock (early fuel detonation, usually sounds like a ratchet or popping popcorn under the hood and typically only happens during moderate to heavy acceleration).

    The only thing that a higher octane rated gas does is resist early detonation. The higher the rating the more resistance it has.
  • boone88rrboone88rr Posts: 194
    Right, so what's your point?

    I don't see how my statement was "only partially correct". You are bringing up a whole different topic. Talking about valve timing is completely different from fuel octanes. I think everyone agrees that VVT is great for gas mileage and getting the most out of the newer engines. This was my point:

    "The octane rating of gasoline tells you how much the fuel can be compressed before it spontaneously ignites. When gas ignites by compression rather than because of the spark from the spark plug, it causes knocking in the engine. Knocking can damage an engine, so it is not something you want to have happening. Lower-octane gas (like "regular" 87-octane gasoline) can handle the least amount of compression before igniting.

    The compression ratio of your engine determines the octane rating of the gas you must use in the car. One way to increase the horsepower of an engine of a given displacement is to increase its compression ratio. So a "high-performance engine" has a higher compression ratio and requires higher-octane fuel. The advantage of a high compression ratio is that it gives your engine a higher horsepower rating for a given engine weight -- that is what makes the engine "high performance." The disadvantage is that the gasoline for your engine costs more.

    Isn't the internet fun? :surprise:
  • boone88rrboone88rr Posts: 194
    "On the Frontier site, dyno tests are posted showing no gain on premium vs regular, so for the Frontier you don't need to buy premium to get maximum horsepower"

    What site are you referring to?
  • badnessbadness Posts: 242
    what ever dude.........
  • As a former Frontier owner (03 4x4), I couldn't bring myself to buy another one. It was fine in most departments except off road suspension was too soft and it developed several rattles that the dealer could not find let alone fix. I drove and liked the 05 but the interior seemed almost cheesier than my 03 so I was leary from the start. The Tacoma felt better built and the interior quality is undeniably superior. Bought the Tacoma Dbl cab 4x4....absolutely love this truck. It's my first Toyota and I can't imagine regretting buying this truck.

    As for the complaints I've read, none of them have shown up after 1200 miles....fine power, very quiet, no wind noise, ticking, groaning or vibrations....goes into and out of 4WD without complaint...runs fine on 89 octane, no pains felt at fill up. I think it rides firmer than the Frontier, but dampens the bumps quickly, and really excels off road..great hill climber! It will take a better truck than the Frontier to make me go back. If there is such a thing as a Nissan traitor, sign me up and give me my bumper sticker.
  • badnessbadness Posts: 242
    well your the only one who said Premium is need for the Nissan ,your wrong only toys need them read a nissan Manual and you will see,The guys and girls haven't ever even said anything about the Prem. gas,nor dose the any of the web sites the all give reviews,so don't put a bad taste in Nissan owner!! .
  • danielacostadanielacosta Posts: 132
    Hey congrats on the Tacoma; glad you got a good one. Does your Tacoma have hill start assist, 4-wheel limited slip, and hill descent control like the Frontier?
  • goofballgoofball Posts: 20
    I understand that the Nissan Frontier V6 doesn't require anything other than 87 octane for it to make full power. I never meant to imply that in my original posting although after re-reading it it does come out that way. This is what I get for reading and posting at 2am...

    As far as I can remember from early this morning the only point I was trying to make was that the vast majority of standard vehicles will see zero performance gains from running anything over 87 octane exactly like the reply to me from boone88rr stated. Like I said, it was late (early) and I was obviously tired and not comprehending things properly. No more posting after 12AM for me.

    For the record I now own a '05 Tacoma V6 and have no qualms with having to use 91+ octane when I feel like getting on it hard. Day-to-day I will be using either 87 or 89 depending on what mileage compared one to the other looks like after a few thousand miles.

    When buying I looked heavily at both the Tacoma and Frontier and up until actually contacting dealerships for info they were neck and neck. Frontier had better HP/TQ numbers and the cost was around 1500$ less comparably configured. The Frontier had a DIN style stereo mount making for a easier replacement and had options for upgraded sound including XM, Sirius and MP3 capabilities. The Frontier also had better stock equipment without having to add option packages. The Tacoma had much better interior and exterior quality and looks (personal opinion), slightly more room in the back bench area and wife approval. The Tacoma had better availability from what I could find on dealer websites with the options I wanted in this area of the country. The Toyota had the expected reliability I have experienced in several other Toyota vehicles owned by myself, family and friends (not to bag on Nissan, I also had a '86 720 Nissan pickup that ran well into the 180,000mi area, was traded in due to no A/C and several minor problems that would have totaled 3-4000$ to repair). The Toyota had slightly better historical resale.

    The final clincher that split the 50-50 in my mind was the response from Toyota dealerships in this area versus Nissan. Several of the Toyota dealerships responded to the e-mails I sent out that specified exactly what I wanted in a Tacoma with EXACT configuration sheets, including VIN, stock numbers and price offers of vehicles available at the dealer or on the ground and shipping to the state that matched or were close to what I wanted. The only responses I got from all of the Nissan dealers, keeping in mind that I sent them exact specs of what I wanted in a Frontier, same as the Toyota dealers, were requests to call them to discuss what options I wanted and to come down and look at what they had. That was unacceptable to me as I had already provided them with that information and didn't want to deal with any high pressure phone or in person sales techniques. I had already made up my mind on what I wanted from both vehicles, I just wanted prices and contact info should I wish to speak with them. Toyota in this area did that for me several times over. Nissan in the Phoenix, AZ Metro area fell extremely short in that respect.
  • Yep..that's why I had to wait a long time to get'll be interesting to see how well all this electronic stuff works over time. I remember when hill assist/control was a 4 speed with a granny low and a 205 transfer case.
  • boone88rrboone88rr Posts: 194
    Ok, I looked at the dyno tests. Very nice, I wish I could see the same tests done on a Tacoma.

    Let me just ask you. What rpm range are you usually driving in? 5000? 4000? I'm guessing it's probably around the 3000 range or lower, mostly for the sake of gas mileage. But do let me know what range you're usually driving in, consider me interested. Let's go to the charts:

    Dyno test: Difference in HP using regular and premium fuel

    Now you're still going to tell me that the Frontier doesn't benefit from premium gas? If anything this chart proves my point. In the range of 3500 to 3750 rpms (it's a shame he didn't get any readings lower) the horsepower range is anywhere from 10 to 25 hp difference between using 87 and 93. That's a pretty big difference to me. I'm guessing it is to a lot of people on this board who are quick to point out that same difference in HP between the Frontier and the Tacoma.

    Like I said before, driving at 5600 rpms gets the max horses out of your truck but I'm sure you don't do that. When you're running at 4000 rpms or higher the octane doesn't matter because it doesn't get a chance to combust early, that's probably all that chart is good at showing. I don't even use premium, I use 89 in my Tacoma. But I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you think a higher octane will have no advantages in your Frontier. I guess I'm still not convinced.
  • danielacostadanielacosta Posts: 132
    Excellent write-up and analysis of how dealer info helped you choose the Tacoma. Interesting that I am in Mesa and my experience was the opposite: I had more cooperation from Nissan dealers, especilly the one I ended up buying from, than from the Toyota dealers. Aside from the dealers, the deciding factors for me were the low-hanging central exhaust crossmember on Tacoma (bad for off-roading) and having to remove the headrests to fold the rear seat on Tacoma (I use the rear seat for cargo almost daily).

    Next truck I'm looking for is with some sort of hybrid/VCM that will deliver mileage in the mid-20's along with about 300 hp. Toyota's upcoming Tundra replacement looks interesting, too.
  • danielacostadanielacosta Posts: 132
    Most of the time I'm running in the 2-3000 rpm range, as you suspected. I don't have the smarts to know why there is a difference in the lower rpm ranges of the graphs, but I suspect he didn't plot data that low because it wasn't valid for the dyno he used. You are correct that there were some gains in the lower rpm ranges, but by and large the graphs are almost an identical overlay. His written summary, quoted below, pretty much sums it up: premium doesn't buy anything with the Frontier.

    "You can see the results on the graphs below--allowing for the machine's margin of error, there was almost no difference in the two. The test conducted with premium fuel showed 219 horsepower and 229 ft/lbs torque, both numbers actually slightly below the numbers posted on 87-octane fuel. There were some gains in the lower RPM ranges, but peak power numbers were essentially the same. I have been very careful to keep possible variables at a minimum, so I am at a loss to explain why there was no increase in performance with the premium fuel. Even accounting for margin of error on the dyno machine itself the differences would have been small, certainly not enough to justify paying for the more expensive premium fuel. You may draw your own conclusions from this test, but mine are clear; my truck runs very well on 87-octane fuel and no better on the high-priced stuff. With gas prices high and getting higher I'm only too happy to fill 'er up with regular, thank you."
  • badnessbadness Posts: 242
    now that sums it up for anyone and my self. what a great info site to know about if anyone needs to know more info on the nissan,
  • woodshop28woodshop28 Posts: 74
  • dennwialldennwiall Posts: 11
    Anyone can give honest opinion on Toyota Taco Access 4 cylinders and similar 4cl Nissan Frontier XE. I’ve heard Toyota engine slightly better but Nissan better in the body department.. Anyone did test drive to compare..? Again, I’m interested in 4 cylinders models only.
  • qwert13qwert13 Posts: 24
    Thanks for the responses about truck color, guys...I've got the blue...the reason is that I opened a case with Nissan complaining about the excessive chipping and questioning the paints. They told me to go to the Nissan dealer who opened a ticket accessing the vehicle does has excessive chipping on the rear overfenders and rocker panels due to gravel roads and entering the mileage...3841. They also referenced the Nissan case number. I just wanted to start a paper trail on this. For the "off-roading" I have done, this chipping is truly rediculous. Paints exposed to the elements should be a bit more forgiving. I pity Frontier owners in Northern States where they use salt. It would be nice if Frontier owners would check the overfenders/rocker panels after a good wash and note the chipping they are seeing compared to "off-pavement" travel and mileage, and then post what they see along with the vehicle color. Thanks in advance.
    As a final note...I got my Leer R100 camper shell on Friday 7/29. Total cost of 1500 with the Yakama rails. The inside liner and fold down sliding window were free since it was a new releaase. Damn good looking topper and excellent color match...except the topper doesn't have matching chips...

    For all those wanting toppers...
  • ensembleensemble Posts: 3
    I test drove the auto 4cyl Taco and Fronty, and bought the Fronty. Both had good overall build quality. I thought both engines were fairly refined (unlike the Chevy Colorado - ugh).

    Advantages of each:

    10 more hp, very smooth ride for a truck, carbon fiber bed, lots of extras on the 4 cyls on the lot (only two though), maybe a bit more room in the back.
    Base 4 cyl has silly looking wheels. The truck body is styled well for pre-runner/4x4 kit, but the small, plain wheels on the base model look like an after- thought. A bit pricey, although well equipped.

    Price was roughly $2K better with rebate in July,
    base vehicle looks very good. Ride good but stiff.
    Side airbags an option. Others have complained about the hard plastic interior, but I actually prefer the "less busy" interior of the Fronty to the Taco.
    Four wheel disc brakes. More base models on the lot than the Taco.

    negatives: Side airbags about impossible to find. Extras limited on 4 cyl, no power windows, locks. This is my biggest complaint about the Fronty. Rated mileage a few mpg less than the Taco, maybe due to higher profile.

    Basically, the apparent bit of extra power in the Taco didn't really matter to me. The overall quality I felt was similar, so the choice was 1) more goodies at a higher price for the Taco, or 2) better looks at a lower price w/o some amenities I would have liked on the Fronty. I chose #2 and have been happy so far.

    Nissan needs to make more options available on the 4 cyl models, as I think a significant fraction of "small" PU buyers don't need 265 hp. It also wouldn't hurt to squeeze a few more hp out of the 4 cyl, but this might be tough to do w/o hurting the gas mileage.
This discussion has been closed.